Planet Utah

Tim Russert, RIP

I heard the news about Russert while driving around yesterday, and it was quite a shock. Very sad for Russert himself (who had many productive years left), his family, his friends, and his colleagues.

When I got home, though, I thought the coverage was a little over the top--even allowing for the fact that the media were paying tribute to one of their own. But then when I started to hear the stories about Russert, it seemed that he really was a very different sort of guy, a guy who touched a lot of people's lives. These didn't sound like post-mortem conversions, either--you know, like when the biggest son-of-a-bitch in the world dies, and people remember only the rare good moments as opposed to all of the bad ones. No, the stories people shared and the affection they had for Russert seemed genuine. (It got me thinking that if he'd been a bit more conventionally attractive, he could have had one helluva political career.)

Russert was most famous for the hot-seat, gotcha interview, in which he would force politicians to explain flip-flops, broken promises, and apparent double standards and examples of hypocrisy. He also tried to get them on record with hypothetical questions: "If...would you...?" For example, "If Sen. Obama took a pledge to forego all negative campaigning this fall, would you also take that pledge?" The main reason for doing this, I think, is so that there was always fertile ground to plow in looking for even MORE flip-flops, broken promises, etc. If you answered one of Russert's hypotheticals, and the "if..." part came true somewhere down the road, he could call you back in and force you to explain why you hadn't lived up to the "would you..." part (if indeed you hadn't).

Without a doubt, Russert was the best in the business at this kind of journalism. He was also, I think, quite fair, seeking to skewer both the left and the right with equal vigor.

Unfortunately, I never found this approach particularly edifying. Russert could question someone for an hour, and you would walk away knowing a lot about how they handled themselves under Russert-style questioning, and a lot about how they might deal with some hypothetical issue, but almost nothing about things that matter (namely, the ins and outs of their policy positions on the most important issues of the day, and their responses to the most salient criticisms of those positions). That's because Russert was a political junkie--loved the game--but not a policy wonk.

So, Russert seems to have been a good man who led a good, productive life and touched a lot of people. That's not a bad legacy. I hope, though, that his particular style of journalism does not also become part of the legacy. "Meet the Press" occupies a prime chunk of real estate on Sunday mornings. Russert's successor ought to build something more significant there than one giant hot seat.

The worst show in the history of television

It's "Verdict," with Dan Abrams, on MSNBC. It's a one-hour show, dedicated largely to the presidential campaign. Watch it, and I guarantee you will learn nothing. It's Abrams and a bunch of hack pundits and consultants talking about who "won" or "lost" the day.

If Abrams were an actor, you would say he chews the scenery. He rolls his eyes, mugs for the camera, gestures wildly, taunts his guests...all in an apparent effort to infuse the show with energy and passion. But the "issues" the show covers (e.g., who won the confrontation between Chelsea Clinton and the student who asked about Hillary's reaction to the news of her husband's Lewinsky infidelity?) are so incredibly petty, so downright insulting in their emptiness, you have to think Abrams is just overcompensating. I'm sure he thinks something along the following lines every night: "You know, I started out as a serious attorney. How the hell did I end up here?"

Anyway, here's how Abrams himself describes the show. It doesn't really do justice to the utter fatuousness of the exercise, but it gives you some idea of what (I hope) you're missing:

Too many programs on other networks, just invite two people on to "debate" some issue and leave viewers with little more than each side's talking points. I will try to use my legal background to assess right from wrong and ultimately announce the day's winners and losers.

A good example is our regular "On Their Trail" political segment where we compare the candidates' accusations and statements. Rather than simply have people discuss or debate the latest political spat with no resolution, we check the facts, assess the accusations and by the end of the segment we declare a loser – the candidate who, on that day, is "guiltier" of more misstatements, cheap shots, and blunders.

Pretty low standard

Apparently The Weekly Standard can't be troubled to cover the Elliot Spitzer story. See for yourself.

Footnote: okay, Spitzer's mentioned on their blog, but not in any of the online or subscription-only stories.

Fired

I'm not a golf fan, but I do pay attention to matters of racial politics. That's how this cover of Golfweek magazine came to my attention. The back story is that a golf commentator said that the only way young golfers were going to be able to take on Tiger was to do so as a group -- specifically, "lynch him in a back alley." (Actually, Nick Faldo was the one who joked that golfers should take on Tiger as a group, and the offending commentator, Kelly Tilghman, said the "lynch him" comment in response, laughing.)

This was a stupid attempt at humor by someone who's actually friends with Tiger. The ostensibly funny element was that Tiger is so good, the only way you can beat him is to physically incapacitate him. It's ostensibly even funnier when you consider that golf is a gentleman's game, not known for violence.

The problem, however, is that: a) lynching was a practice deployed by whites to terrorize blacks in the American south up until the 1960s; and b) Tiger's father is black. These two facts mean that if you joke about lynching Tiger, you're asking for trouble.

There's another side of the story, though. Lynching, though it is associated with racist behavior directed at American blacks, refers more generically to "mob justice." It need not involve racism -- the key elements, in fact, are: a) mob action, and b) lack of a legal sanction for that action. As you might imagine, lynchings have occurred in many countries during many historical periods under many different sets of circumstances.

So, while the comment about Tiger being lynched was ill-advised, it's obvious that the commentator--who, again, is a friend of Tiger's--was joking about a mob taking down Tiger, not about a race-based hate crime. That's why Tiger described the whole thing as a "non-issue."

Golfweek, though, saw a chance to sell some magazines, and so went with an extremely inflammatory, extremely irresponsible (because it's waaaaay over the top) cover.

And now, the good news: Golfweek's editor and his second in command have been fired over the cover flap.

Steve Benson: still a hack (not that you needed reminding)

I've always contended that Benson is a demagogue. He doesn't make you think. He just makes you angry. He's controversial in the same way that someone who sets fire to a Bible would be, or someone who laces his rhetoric with f-bombs. You're taken aback at his blatant defiance of socially acceptable behavior, but never for a moment does he make you question your assumptions. That's not his goal. He's just trying to stick a finger in your eye, or stick a finger in the eye of someone you care about. Then he cashes a big paycheck and wins a Pulitzer and laughs about it like a 10-year-old boy who just told a nun to go screw herself.

Here's his latest effort.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Benson neither heard nor read Romney's speech. In no respect was it pandering, as suggested by Benson's cartoon. Among other things, Romney said this:

(Some) would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts.  That I will not do.  I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it.  My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

So, it's just Benson up to his old tricks -- kicking someone in the crotch for no reason, and then running away.

What the hell is Linda Valdez talking about?

In the Republic today, Linda Valdez had this to say:

"The myth that illegal immigrants are undeserving of compassion may be the most soul-scarring of the lies the American public keeps hearing."

This is one of the dumbest sentences I've read by a professional journalist in years.

First of all, is there really a "myth" out there that illegal immigrants are undeserving of compassion? That would be like saying that Lyndon Johnson's complicity in the Kennedy assassination is a "myth." It isn't, really -- it's just a crackpot idea that almost no one takes seriously.

Second of all, is it true that the American public "keeps hearing" that "illegal immigrants are undeserving of compassion"? If so, who "keeps saying" it? I'm a political junkie, and I've never, ever heard anyone say that -- not a presidential candidate, not a media personality, not a guy on the barstool next to me at Rosie McCaffrey's. In fact, I've never heard anyone imply it, or even hint at it.

So what's going on here? Basically, Linda Valdez is trying to pursue her agenda by constructing a bone-dry straw man, dousing it with gasoline, lighting a match, and then standing back and watching the towering flames with satisfaction.

News story or op-ed piece: you decide!

Here's an excerpt from an AP story--a plain old news story, not one of those bogus "news analysis" things--on Mike Huckabee:

The Republican presidential candidate has plenty to champion from his 10 1/2 years as governor -- including school improvements and health insurance for the children of the working poor. But his record has rough edges, and Huckabee has a habit of playing fast and loose with it.

Since when is a reporter permitted to write something like, "...(he) has a habit of playing fast and loose with it"?

My kind of story

Did you see this story in the Republic? It's about troupes of bullfighting dwarfs in Mexico. I love this quote, from one of Original Bullfighting Dwarfs (that's really their name): "You can't deny the attraction of a dwarf fighting bulls."

No, you can't.

I like this, too (not a quote, but just a line from the article): "Although some activists worry that (the troupes) propagate stereotypes..."

Uh, what stereotypes are we talking about, exactly? That old chestnut about how dwarfs are always getting into fights with farm animals? Or the one about how bulls have it in for dwarfs?

If this is true...

...the New Republic should shut its doors. (And by "this," I mean this.) You can get suckered once by Stephen Glass. But if you get suckered twice in the same way by two different people, you're not up to the task of professional journalism.

The editorial cartoonist's go-to move

If I had a dollar for every time I've laughed at a cartoon in the newspaper, I'd have a dollar. (It was a "Life in Hell," published in the New Times many years ago.)

In my view, most traditional cartoonists are hacks. But hackdom is something to which editorial cartoonists can only aspire. At least 50 percent of their cartoons are of a type that I call "the two-context comment." I want you to keep an eye out for it. The frequency with which your particular paper's editorial cartoonist uses it is a good metric for how lame he/she is.

Just off the top of my head, I've made up an illustrative example. (It's THAT easy, which is why the cartoonists love it.) The cartoon shows a couple walking out of a movie theater. "TRANSFORMERS" is displayed prominently on the marquee. The wife says, "My goodness. First they seem to be one thing, then they're another. Always switching back and forth. Who can keep track?" The husband responds,"Yes, the Romney campaign does seem to be flip-flopping a lot."

Comedy gold.